I think Gates is a little more concerned with eradicating disease and hunger in third world countries at this point in his life. I'm sure he would prefer M$ weren't so far behind in the mobile phone and tablet computing arenas, but I just can't see it bothering him too much at this point in his life.
I think he is more concerned with being remembered as the one who eradicated disease and hunger instead as the ruthless monopoly abuser heading Microsoft into a DoJ investigation, mercilessly driving his competition out of business by whatever means necessary.
But that's just my impression.
And may I remind you that, in order to be remembered for eradicating disease and hunger, he has, actually, to do so.
You know Trojans thought like that... "Nice horse, let's bring it in - it matches our decor". We always have to question motivations. Is the humanitarian work aimed towards gaining more political influence? To what end?
Andrew Carnegie was regarded as a ruthless businessman by his contemporaries, competitors, and employees. However, he is also almost solely responsible for the free public libraries which have contributed so much to American education (and which, sadly, are now falling into neglect everywhere).
Sometimes you have to regard a person as, y'know, a person -- someone who can do both good things and bad things, things you're grateful for and things you disagree with.
A bit cynical eh? My personal opinion is after the full ramifications of the US DOJ/EU anti-trust actions set in years later Gates realized he couldn't run Microsoft the way he always had and the game was basically fixed against him going forward. If he stayed involved with Microsoft's day-to-day operations it's likely he would been overseeing a long slow decline in relevance. No fun for someone who likes challenges. I think he just lost interest and realized how much good he could do elsewhere.
Why do you think that? Jealousy is a human emotion and has no limits, and no level of success or achievement is a guarantee to be free of desire for more.
There is at least one slight factual error in his answer. He did not write the first BASIC interpreter for the Apple II. That would be Wozniak's Integer BASIC. What Microsoft (not sure if Gates) did was the AppleSoft BASIC, that came with the Apple II+.
Distorting facts to make himself look better is the kind of thing I expect from Gates. After all these billions, he still has something to prove.
I also have a personal dislike for Gates (nasty software, bad attitude) and some knowledge on early 8-bit personal computers (I collect, preserve and, when the technology allows, restore them).
I guess there's not much difference between the Apple II and the Apple II Plus, except that it's not the "very first Apple II". And also, the emphasis on "very first" is a slightly odd way to talk about the "II" of anything.
So maybe you're right that Bill still has something to prove (or, likes to put himself in the best possible light, a business/marketing quality?), it's just that you also misquoted him slightly inaccurately... in support of your own point... ;-)
I remember reading that Wozniak didn't write a floating-point BASIC, though it's not clear why; and it's not clear who exactly at Microsoft wrote it. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't be done totally by one person in isolation, both Bill and Paul would have had a hand in it.
It's odd: because it was the first floating-point BASIC for apple, I tend to think it was the first floating-point BASIC for microsoft, as if they were in competition. But they'd written several basics before then (and I'm sure some of them were floating-point). So much of that code and wisdom would be reused; hard for Wozniak to compete with that!
According to Woz, Jobs was concerned about the progress he was making on FP BASIC:
"Steve Jobs got concerned that I wasn't making enough progress. He even accused me of slacking and coming in at 10 AM in one staff meeting, but I pointed out that I'd been laying out our floppy PC Card [...] and that I'd been leaving at 4 AM every morning, long after even the Houston brothers, Dick and Cliff, had left. "
In the end, it was a Very Bad Decision, as it gave Microsoft a critical leverage during the early Mac days when the Apple II was still the revenue driver at Apple.
Wait! According to that it was on the very first Apple II (as Bill said)!
> [The Apple II] also came with Microsoft's Basic interpreter, dubbed "Applesoft Basic", on cassette tape.
BTW: Sculley seems villainous in that, too. Then again, what about that story Woz tells, of Jobs lying to him about how much he'd get for their project, so that Woz's "half" was less.
You know, I tend to see business as a partly adversarial/competitive game. That's not something I cope with well personally, but that's how I see it. From that perspective, Bill's opportunistic exploitation seems well-done, even talented.
Personal story: in one deal I negotiated, with a very cool and impressive biotech company that I admired greatly, was with their lawyers. I was warned about them by other members of the company, but I have a law degree myself, so I thought ha ha I'll be fine. But what they did was to smother the contract with typographical changes, so that in the diff, the genuine changes were hidden - and they made a substantive change that they didn't tell me about, and that we hadn't discussed. I was outraged, so I cut off the negotiations. I felt seriously unsettled that I was destroying the value that the transaction would have created, but my key realization was that in dealing with people like that, sooner or later they'd catch me out.
So I guess I'm not really OK with Bill's approach at all.
I draft my contracts very defensively, but most people aren't like that company (or like Bill), so it's quite possible I miss out on fruitful collaboration because of my "safe" approach.
I believe there is nothing wrong with defensive contracts. Unless one business partner intents to screw the other, the defensiveness of the contract is moot. I like to explain, when such defensiveness comes into negotiations, that we should be prepared to the eventuality of either CEO being murdered and taken over by a psychopathic double. A good contract is balanced and forces both parties to play fair, just in case they need such kind of cohersion.
It's also OK to decide you won't deal with Company A because they (or their lawyers) cannot be trusted or because, for any kind of reason, they don't play fair. By dealing with them you send the wrong message - that this is admissible - and enable them to continue on this path hurting other companies they deal with.
And yes, Jobs doesn't come through as a very nice guy. I am not sure I would like to work for him.
Great explanation, thank you. Now that you say it, it reminds me of how a law school lecturer explained that often litigation was exactly as you describe: there wasn't a breakdown of relations, but it was due to a bankruptcy/death, and insurance companies then litigated it to the hilt (which, rationally, they should do, so they know exactly what the law is, and can adjust premiums appropriately to reflect the risk they will bear. But in practice, the fighting and blaming is pretty unpleasant)
The meat of the case is the story of the previous agreement of the parties, so you could get an excessively jaded view of business if you assumed that people kept on turning on each other afterwards. In law school, every agreement ends in disaster.
23 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 64.3 ms ] threadBut that's just my impression.
And may I remind you that, in order to be remembered for eradicating disease and hunger, he has, actually, to do so.
By the way, if you get in the habit of editing messages after they're posted, you can add a publishing delay in your profile settings.
Nobody is nice.
Sometimes you have to regard a person as, y'know, a person -- someone who can do both good things and bad things, things you're grateful for and things you disagree with.
Distorting facts to make himself look better is the kind of thing I expect from Gates. After all these billions, he still has something to prove.
I also have a personal dislike for Gates (nasty software, bad attitude) and some knowledge on early 8-bit personal computers (I collect, preserve and, when the technology allows, restore them).
Bill won't get away with that while I watch ;-)
I guess there's not much difference between the Apple II and the Apple II Plus, except that it's not the "very first Apple II". And also, the emphasis on "very first" is a slightly odd way to talk about the "II" of anything. So maybe you're right that Bill still has something to prove (or, likes to put himself in the best possible light, a business/marketing quality?), it's just that you also misquoted him slightly inaccurately... in support of your own point... ;-)
I remember reading that Wozniak didn't write a floating-point BASIC, though it's not clear why; and it's not clear who exactly at Microsoft wrote it. Undoubtedly, it wouldn't be done totally by one person in isolation, both Bill and Paul would have had a hand in it. It's odd: because it was the first floating-point BASIC for apple, I tend to think it was the first floating-point BASIC for microsoft, as if they were in competition. But they'd written several basics before then (and I'm sure some of them were floating-point). So much of that code and wisdom would be reused; hard for Wozniak to compete with that!
"Steve Jobs got concerned that I wasn't making enough progress. He even accused me of slacking and coming in at 10 AM in one staff meeting, but I pointed out that I'd been laying out our floppy PC Card [...] and that I'd been leaving at 4 AM every morning, long after even the Houston brothers, Dick and Cliff, had left. "
http://www.woz.org/letters/general/03.html
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
> [The Apple II] also came with Microsoft's Basic interpreter, dubbed "Applesoft Basic", on cassette tape.
BTW: Sculley seems villainous in that, too. Then again, what about that story Woz tells, of Jobs lying to him about how much he'd get for their project, so that Woz's "half" was less.
You know, I tend to see business as a partly adversarial/competitive game. That's not something I cope with well personally, but that's how I see it. From that perspective, Bill's opportunistic exploitation seems well-done, even talented.
Personal story: in one deal I negotiated, with a very cool and impressive biotech company that I admired greatly, was with their lawyers. I was warned about them by other members of the company, but I have a law degree myself, so I thought ha ha I'll be fine. But what they did was to smother the contract with typographical changes, so that in the diff, the genuine changes were hidden - and they made a substantive change that they didn't tell me about, and that we hadn't discussed. I was outraged, so I cut off the negotiations. I felt seriously unsettled that I was destroying the value that the transaction would have created, but my key realization was that in dealing with people like that, sooner or later they'd catch me out.
So I guess I'm not really OK with Bill's approach at all.
I draft my contracts very defensively, but most people aren't like that company (or like Bill), so it's quite possible I miss out on fruitful collaboration because of my "safe" approach.
It's also OK to decide you won't deal with Company A because they (or their lawyers) cannot be trusted or because, for any kind of reason, they don't play fair. By dealing with them you send the wrong message - that this is admissible - and enable them to continue on this path hurting other companies they deal with.
And yes, Jobs doesn't come through as a very nice guy. I am not sure I would like to work for him.
The meat of the case is the story of the previous agreement of the parties, so you could get an excessively jaded view of business if you assumed that people kept on turning on each other afterwards. In law school, every agreement ends in disaster.